Katzilla MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies the data source (Hipolabs University Domains), update frequency (annual), and details about the return format (Katzilla envelope with quality scores and citation info including SHA-256 hash). This enriches the agent's understanding of data reliability and auditability.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is efficiently structured in two sentences: the first covers purpose, filtering, and data source, while the second explains the return format and its components. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no nested objects), rich annotations, and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns the Katzilla envelope'), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage context, data source, update frequency, and return format details, providing sufficient context for an agent to understand and invoke the tool effectively without needing to explain return values redundantly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('country' and 'name') well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, mentioning filtering by country and name but not providing additional syntax or format details. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting for parameter documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('search universities worldwide') and resources ('using the Hipolabs University Domains API'), and it distinguishes from siblings by specifying its unique domain (education data) and data source (Hipolabs). Unlike generic search tools in the sibling list, this is explicitly for university data with annual updates from an open data source.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool ('search universities worldwide' with filtering by country and name), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives. While it implies usage for finding institution details, domains, and web pages, it lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to other education tools like 'education__college_scorecard' in the sibling list.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.